The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[cladking]

"Sudden" as in, within a generation or two, or "sudden" as in, over the course of a few million years instead a few dozen million? And what kind of "change" are you talking about? The change to go from a Homo Erectus to a Homo sapiens, or the "change" to go from some mammalian rodent to a Homo Sapiens?

There may be no moment in between life and death. There is no moment between life and not life from our perspective because we use definitions. When exactly does a couple get married and at what moment is a baby born or conceived. When does a mutation occur that created a new species. When the survivor of a bottleneck give birth to a new species is itr the first or the 60th individual born that is the new species? Change in life is sudden and you still haven't shown any exceptions. You have lots of words most of which aren't even relevant and you cut and paste links that agree with me.

Show me evidence for gradual change. You can't because "survival of the fittest" has little effect on change in species. It is a tertiary cause of most change.

I wonder how many sudden changes in life I've mentioned in this thread without even trying but still NO NONE HAS SHOWN A GRADUAL CHANGE IN LIFE. Pictures of tortoises do not constitute evidence of a gradual change any more than pictures of fossils that are each much different and are pulled out of different layers of the past. You are extrapolating what you believe is reality from opinion, definitions, and bad interpretation of evidence. Egyptology started with bad assumptions and got every single thing wrong. Biology started with bad assumptions and misinterpret many of their experiments.

 

[cladking]

You clearly ignored the 2 links to actual definitions of the phrase I have provided you, so maybe a simple dictionary definition will help?

survival of the fittest
phrase of survival

Now we're getting somewhere.

Please elaborate.

 

[cladking]

Mere assertion. Dismissed as fever-dream nonsense.

There is no word for "belief" attested in any language before 2500 BC. There is no word for belief in animal languages either.

At what point does a coincidence become a fact.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There may be no moment in between life and death. There is no moment between life and not life from our perspective because we use definitions. When exactly does a couple get married and at what moment is a baby born or conceived.

This is a completely bizar statement to make in response to the question you are quoting.

When does a mutation occur that created a new species.

Single mutations don't create new species.

When the survivor of a bottleneck give birth to a new species

Bottlenecks don't create new species. Those that survive the depletion of the population are of the same species as those that didn't.

Nore does an individual ever give birth to a member of a new species.

is itr the first or the 60th individual born that is the new species?

None of both. Speciation is a gradual process. Every individual ever born was of the same species as its parents.

Change in life is sudden

No, it's always gradual.

and you still haven't shown any exceptions.

There are no exceptions, because it's never sudden (as in "overnight").

You have yet to define what you mean by "sudden". You know... as I asked you to do in the question you were replying to, with this irrelevant drivel.

None of what you wrote in this post actually addresses the question.
Here it is again: what do you mean by "sudden"?

You have lots of words most of which aren't even relevant and you cut and paste links that agree with me.

Talk about projection.......................

Show me evidence for gradual change.

1. every individual ever born is of the same species as its parents. You can show me wrong by pointing out a single documented instance where a member of species X gave birth to a member of species Y

2.

You can't because "survival of the fittest" has little effect on change in species. It is a tertiary cause of most change.

Natural selection is the process by which changes are filtered unto the next generation.
It's not the whole process, obviously. It's the "filter", if you wish.

Mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.

The bolded words are regulated by natural selection.

I wonder how many sudden changes in life I've mentioned in this thread

???

Show me one such post.

without even trying but still NO NONE HAS SHOWN A GRADUAL CHANGE IN LIFE.

You yourself, have on average 50-ish mutations that are unique to you, that you did not get from your mom or dad. You will pass these on to your offspring (if you have any), who in turn will add their own mutations. They will then pass those, along with your mutations, on to their off spring and so on.

This is gradual change.

Pictures of tortoises do not constitute evidence of a gradual change any more than pictures of fossils that are each much different and are pulled out of different layers of the past

So you ask for evidence of gradual change.
You get the evidence in the form of transitional fossil lineups showing a gradual progression through time of change.

Your response:

You are extrapolating what you believe is reality from opinion, definitions, and bad interpretation of evidence.

Transitional fossils showing gradual change through time is not "opinion and definition".
You are welcome to explain how paleontologists apparantly have a "bad interpretation" of these fossils.

Egyptology started with bad assumptions and got every single thing wrong

This doesn't seem relevant to the topic of evolution.

Biology started with bad assumptions and misinterpret many of their experiments.

Thank goodness we have geniuses like you to tell all biologists, paleontologists, molecular biologists, geneticists, etc in the world how they don't know what they are talking about and got it all wrong, ey?

 

[cladking]

...and a superiority complex.

That's hilarious!

I may be the only individual in the world who might be wrong. Everyone else is dead certain they are right everything and are not in the least disturbed no one agrees with them.

I think there is a better than 30% chance I am mostly right about what you call "evolution" and you are so certain that you are 100% right that you don't even notice when you disagree with other believers in evolution nor do you notice my evidence. You plod merrily ahead in your absolute convictions. If there are two different but related fossils in two different beddings then there mustta been a gradual change. It mustta been caused by survival of the fittest.

Of course if nature favors the fit then there's no reason governments and business shouldn't be allowed to exploit the less fit (like employees or people in undeveloped countries). It's all a nice neat package invented by Look and See Science.

"Evolution" wasn't invented to exploit people and the "id" wasn't invented to remove responsibility for individual decisions. But they are both likely wrong and have caused a great deal of grief and destruction. I can almost see a new species of human in the future with no heart; and it will arise suddenly. The past is the easiest thing to predict.

 

[cladking]

This is a completely bizar statement to make in response to the question you are quoting.

Good Lord, you asked for a definition of "sudden" and suggested two generations!!!!!

I said "sudden" can be defined as no moment between two events.

Let me try defining "moment" for you. A "moment" is a theoretical point in time during which nothing at all can occur. In other words a great deal about life, consciousness, and evolution occur in FAR LESS THAN A NANOSECOND. Change is exceedingly rapid dependent upon definitions. But is always fast and rarely does anything require more than a generation or two. There is not really any gradual evolution caused by survival of the fittest. This springs up because we use poor assumption, definitions, and interpretation.

 

[cladking]

This doesn't seem relevant to the topic of evolution.

It's not directly relevant but is an example of how blind individuals can be even in groups and groups of Peers; especially in groups. It is an example of how evidence can be misinterpreted. We each pick and choose what is evidence and what is not. We each build models of what we believe and compare what we experience to these models. Evidence that doesn't want to stick to the models or massaged enough to be bolted to them is simply cast aside as red herrings, stinking rotting fish. But everything that supports them is the formatting for what we see and experience.

We are Homo Omnisciencis and we see only what we believe while anomalies are virtually invisible and quickly ignored. No group that calls themselves "scientists" is a better example. There have been better examples in the past but their ouija boards finally caught up with them and they are no more.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Change is exceedingly rapid dependent upon definitions. But is always fast and rarely does anything require more than a generation or two. There is not really any gradual evolution caused by survival of the fittest. This springs up because we use poor assumption, definitions, and interpretation.

LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!

Fixation (population genetics) - Wikipedia

So you think that when a mutation occurs in an individual, that 1 or 2 generations later it is present in all individuals of the population that individual belongs to?

Wow! Just....... wow!

 

[halbhh]

I can understand how an intelligent individual may have problems with the creation account in Genesis.

Well, maybe my standards are too high, but I think people ought to read with less of an agenda, in order to really hear .

It's so much more humble, but also vastly more rewarding.

If we can read like this -- true and full listening -- we are transported.

Changed.

No longer the same as we used to be.

If an individual does, the last thing they would care about is silly debates about small details not even addressed at all in the scripture -- small details about creation like geology or biochemistry, the age of Earth (never said in the Bible), and all of those.....distractions that prevent hearing the scripture.

The useless debates that block, prevent, kill, destroy what is being given -- something so much better than small details.

We learn in other places, like the beginning of the Gospel of John that God created all things, not only some, and we shouldn't have trouble understanding that means God not only can use chemistry, but also He created all the natural laws, physics, and anything that happens from those laws of nature is His creation, unfolding perfectly over time, like a flower from a seed.

It's like, you only need faith, to see that, in time. Or, faith and willingness to stop arguing about evolution, and just truly listen, without painting a doctrine on top of the scripture, so that it does the talking instead of us doing the talking, and it happens to us, instead of us happening to it, and it changes us, instead of us changing it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's not directly relevant but is an example of how blind individuals can be even in groups and groups of Peers; especially in groups. It is an example of how evidence can be misinterpreted. We each pick and choose what is evidence and what is not. We each build models of what we believe and compare what we experience to these models. Evidence that doesn't want to stick to the models or massaged enough to be bolted to them is simply cast aside as red herrings, stinking rotting fish. But everything that supports them is the formatting for what we see and experience.

We are Homo Omnisciencis and we see only what we believe while anomalies are virtually invisible and quickly ignored. No group that calls themselves "scientists" is a better example. There have been better examples in the past but their ouija boards finally caught up with them and they are no more.

Point out something in reality that constitutes an anomaly with respect to evolution theory

 

[tas8831]

LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!

Fixation (population genetics) - Wikipedia

So you think that when a mutation occurs in an individual, that 1 or 2 generations later it is present in all individuals of the population that individual belongs to?

Wow! Just....... wow!

I cannot believe he still pukes up these lies.
He mentioned mink 'changing' in one generation - I find that it is really at least 7.
And foxes - 1 generation? Nope - dozens.

Then he just gives a list of 3 critters that he claims changed 'suddenly' - to include domestic pigs - and thinks that his just naming them is proof that they changed 'suddenly.'

Like I said - child with ADHD (and egotism)...

 

[tas8831]

We are Homo Omnisciencis

No we aren't.

You made that up.

 

[tas8831]

There is no word for "belief" attested in any language before 2500 BC.

Who cares? This is 2020.

There is no word for belief in animal languages either.

How do you know?
Do you speak cat?

At what point does a coincidence become a fact.

At what point will you present actual evidence for ANYTHING you have claimed?

 

[rrobs]

Why don't you explain what you claim to know. We cannot know what you learned in the past.

I think you are right about that, but most of the folks here are convinced I learned nothing. How they can know that is unclear, but maybe they are just super discerning. It's possible.

 

[rrobs]

He did say he was open and ready to learn.
You are showing some contradictions to these claims.

These forums are full of contradictions. What's new?

 

[rrobs]

At least we can agree that the text of Genesis does not describe it.

I didn't, nor am I inclined at this time to disagree with Genesis

 

[rrobs]

If your thinking of flora/fauna it sounds like you need to continue investigating earlier evolution. Flora is a vastly complicated life compared to self replicating chemicals.
This won't answer all your questions but might provide an insight to what was happening in very early evolution and what types of theories are being considered and tested.
https://www.cell.com/fulltext/S0092-8674(00)81263-5

This is an important part of the equation I found in the article, "Another reason for postulating an autotrophic origin of life..."

Postulating means to assume something without proof. That makes sense because it at least borders on ludicrous to assume conditions supposedly 4.5 billions years ago can be known with any degree of accuracy. The article even said there is a variety of opinions on the matter.

It depends on what your goal is - to find out our best truth or find the best conspiracy theory.

My goal is the truth.

John 17:17,

Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
​

Science never lays claim to truth. The scriptures do. I can say for certain that the scriptures have had a far greater positive effect on my life than the one year I studied evolution at Georgia Tech. I look for results, not to be part of the crowd. But that's just me. I understand everybody is different.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think you are right about that, but most of the folks here are convinced I learned nothing. How they can know that is unclear, but maybe they are just super discerning. It's possible.

They are basing the conclusion on your posts. Your claim of knowledge in the field is contradicted by the content of your posts. This could mean you didn't receive an education in the material, but there are other possible explanations for the poor knowledge you use.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

These forums are full of contradictions. What's new?

So your best answer to this is to throw up hands and wave it away. That is not very open and ready to learn. There are other things your answer is not very as well.

 

[rrobs]

The topic is evolution, in case you need to be reminded.

I was just thinking that without having a firm grip on the origin of life, it would be difficult to construct a theory of how it progressed. Seems important to know if our building is built on sand or solid bedrock.

But we can get back to evolution. I think my OP says what I wanted it to say, i.e. it takes no less faith to believe evolution than the scriptures.